News Chapter Four - Exploration Reveal

[Dutchman141]

274 pages of discussion about how and how not the new exploration update should/could/would work......
And then some people visited Frontier telling us that Fdev's solution hasn't heen mentioned here.



Right.

 

[Sylveria]

To each their own. If I happened to lose a ship in a 1 out of 10,000,000 chance of galactic-shaking fireworks, I'd consider it worth the price of admission.

But yeah, Frontier don't seem like they're likely to implement these sort of dynamic celestial events, never mind the dire consequences that might be associated with them.

So yeah, a tangent to the thread.

Personally- I agree with you. I wouldn't mind at all if I flew too close to that black hole and it insta-ghettied me, either. If I did, it would be my own damned fault.

The first time I got the random message about my FSD going on the fritz being in a system with a pulsar, it was the first thing I thought of, actually- then I found out there's really absolutely nothing that happens when you fly too close to a black hole in this game. I was rather disappointed, to say the least.

But then I thought of all the salt generation by all those who whinge at the slightest challenge presented to them which they have to make choices to overcome in this game- such as a "timer" on ship transfers... and realized why Frontier doesn't implement certain features.

 

[Han Zulu]

Personally- I agree with you. I wouldn't mind at all if I flew too close to that black hole and it insta-ghettied me, either. If I did, it would be my own damned fault.

Or at least a way to turn the security system on or off. Imagine turning it off, and it allows you to fly closer and perhaps be able to scan and get additional data with higher payout and recognition.

The first time I got the random message about my FSD going on the fritz being in a system with a pulsar, it was the first thing I thought of, actually- then I found out there's really absolutely nothing that happens when you fly too close to a black hole in this game. I was rather disappointed, to say the least.

Me too! I was g out approaching my first black hole, and it took me a couple more before I stopped being nervous. It's too simple.

But then I thought of all the salt generation by all those who whinge at the slightest challenge presented to them which they have to make choices to overcome in this game- such as a "timer" on ship transfers... and realized why Frontier doesn't implement certain features.

Yup.

What's missing in the game is a rookie/easy-mode setting vs a master/elite setting.

 

[Scytale]

then I found out there's really absolutely nothing that happens when you fly too close to a black hole in this game. I was rather disappointed, to say the least.

Well, Black Holes are slippery ground, as what "happens" depends on the observer. In the relativistic concept, your wingman will see you stopped at the event horizon forever, while you will see yourself passing it and falling to the singularity. The Newtonian ED, where even light is faster than light, could somewhat manage it, but...wow... not in the mood of scientific accuracy. FD would have to invent a new Physics... Then, imho, this statu quo: nothing happens .
Also no antigravity in ED. DB said "no". (DW)

 

[Sylveria]

Well, Black Holes are slippery ground, as what "happens" depends on the observer. In the relativistic concept, your wingman will see you stopped at the event horizon forever, while you will see yourself passing it and falling to the singularity. The Newtonian ED could manage it, but...wow... not in the mood of scientific accuracy. FD would have to invent a new Physics... Then, imho, this statu quo. Nothing happens .

All of that is quite theoretical, actually. We simply don't know how they "work" just yet. Space-time is relative, sure- but how do we actually know that's what happens?

As to inventing new Physics... we've already got that in the form of hybrid arcade-ism in this game... in the form of "dogfight" space mechanics.

 

[S3B4ST13N]

Well, Black Holes are slippery ground, as what "happens" depends on the observer. In the relativistic concept, your wingman will see you stopped at the event horizon forever, while you will see yourself passing it and falling to the singularity. The Newtonian ED could manage it, but...wow... not in the mood of scientific accuracy. FD would have to invent a new Physics... Then, imho, this statu quo. Nothing happens .

Imagine Frontier figure out a way for players to experience what you mentioned. Like, from the perspective of the Cmdr on the event horizon, he's moving along and doing things. But outside of this, his wingman has noticed he's not moving. They can't communicate at all (except outside the game ofc); no voice, or chat or anything.
Then perhaps the Cmdr in the black hole either dies, or perhaps gets sucked through the black hole and deposited somewhere else in space; meanwhile, the watcher is still watching the other Cmdr's ship hanging in space.

I have a theory as to how this can be handled, the watcher's client simply renders a replacement ship in the place the Cmdr was. Meanwhile for the other Cmdr, their experience is on going.

 

[Ziljan]

Danger is the spice that brings out the flavor of a game. That being said, the mechanics of the game need to have an explanation, not just a random hammer smashing you.

One thing missing from the game is internal wear and tear. We have integrity loss but this only reduces effective hull strength by up to 50%. So you can still have a ship with 1% integrity, 1% hull, and 100% on all modules. This is wrong.

A ship with bottomed out integrity should be much less heat efficient, also suffer small amounts of damage to internals from overuse. The max health % of modules should be linked to ship integrity so that at 0 % integrity, the max module health is 75%. The heat efficiency ratio should also increase by 0.01 per 1% loss of integrity once it drops below 30% to a Max of +0.30 PP heat efficiency.

There should also be corrosion effects from radiation that reduce ship integrity. Currently it's just from flying in supercruise, but really it should be from flying too close to hotter blue stars pumping out high energy particles and photons. Ergo, the risk would be manageable by sticking to cooler stars.

As has been suggested many times, a damaged FSD should probably be allowed to malfunction during a jump, causing severe internal module damage and landing you in a random system. Somewhere probably within 4x your jump range. But perhaps more... Much more.

 

[Scytale]

Imagine Frontier figure out a way for players to experience what you mentioned. Like, from the perspective of the Cmdr on the event horizon, he's moving along and doing things. But outside of this, his wingman has noticed he's not moving. They can't communicate at all (except outside the game ofc); no voice, or chat or anything.
Then perhaps the Cmdr in the black hole either dies, or perhaps gets sucked through the black hole and deposited somewhere else in space; meanwhile, the watcher is still watching the other Cmdr's ship hanging in space.

I have a theory as to how this can be handled, the watcher's client simply renders a replacement ship in the place the Cmdr was. Meanwhile for the other Cmdr, their experience is on going.

Yes. But then, ED would no longer be Newtonian for this while still being for other phenomena... So many inconsistencies.

Danger is the spice that brings out the flavor of a game.

Right. The Spice must flow !

Spoiler

 

[Sylveria]

Yes. But then, ED would no longer be Newtonian for this while still being for other phenomena... So many inconsistencies.

It's never going to be absolutely Newtonian. As mentioned previously- the dogfight space mechanics are already in place. There's so little difference in speed and handling when it comes to ship sizes alone, it's not even worth the discussion of "realism vs real-sim".

If I had my way, those flying "big" ships would have smaller ones swarming them at 2-3 times the speed... not simply plodding about at around the same speeds.

 

[Scytale]

The fundamental principles still are Newtonian. It's the pride of FD. Then we always can do maths to calculate the ratios mass/thrust of every ship...but...it's only a game !

but how do we actually know that's what happens?

because:

Space-time is relative, sure-

Thank you !

 

[Faded Glory]

Danger is the spice that brings out the flavor of a game. That being said, the mechanics of the game need to have an explanation, not just a random hammer smashing you.

One thing missing from the game is internal wear and tear. We have integrity loss but this only reduces effective hull strength by up to 50%. So you can still have a ship with 1% integrity, 1% hull, and 100% on all modules. This is wrong.

0% integrity is actually hull at 70% strength I believe...

Regarding danger, I prefer the term challenge. There can be no actual danger in the game, destruction isn't dangerous, just a time sink so frustrating, and as you absolutely correctly (IMO) point out, random destruction would be the worst thing FD could put into the game. I mean, none of us really enjoy the RNG in the game do we?

However, challenge in the game, challenge that can be recognized and can be mitigated by a players actions would be great. Common exploration questions are "should I take heat sinks or an AFMU?", and many explorers just go "meh, I never do, you never need 'em". But we should! And their use should enable explorers to potentially stay out longer, take challenging risks and overcome unexpected challenging events.

Regarding integrity, since it can only be repaired at a station, while it absolutely should make a difference, really all that would do is mean explorers would have to return to civilization more often and I'm not sure I see the added game-play there. IMHO, risks and challenge need to have an active counter to them, not simply a passive one, so there would need to be a way of shoring up your ship's integrity if it's allowed to cause catastrophic consequences, at least somewhat while out in the black.

TL : DR - Challenge in exploration (everywhere in the game) should have an active counter to it. A player should be able to mitigate and overcome the challenge by active game-play. Having random challenge that simply swipes players for no reason and gives them no recourse to be able to overcome it, while that might be something we have to accept in real life, would be tedious in a game.

 

[WR3ND]

Having the possibility of losing a ship as slim as it might be in a supernova or other such spectacular and dynamic celestial events as rare as they might be seems like a more compelling environment to bother exploring in the first place than having my ship automatically degrade for the sake of a gameplay loop leash exploring static environments. But yeah, that might just be me.

 

[Scytale]

I agree. It would be, imho, a good thing to come back to the fundamentals and ask ourselves what have been the actual dangers the explorers had to face since the dawn of humanity? Beside environemental threats (predators, climatology, diseases....) thirst and hunger. Our Cmdrs don't eat and drink (nor have they legs). Predators can only be other Cmdrs and Thargs (or there be dragons) but they are so easy to evade. Then only a sharp balancing of cosmological phenomena could, imho, be implemented in this game.

 

[Faded Glory]

Having the possibility of losing a ship as slim as it might be in a supernova or other such spectacular and dynamic celestial events as rare as they might be seems like a more compelling environment to bother exploring in the first place than having my ship automatically degrade for the sake of a gameplay loop leash exploring static environments. But yeah, that might just be me.

I think that's all good, just feel there should be a way for players to recognize and actively overcome those events rather than for them to jump into a system and the fact that some very rare celestial event is going on makes destruction a fait accompli.

 

[WR3ND]

I think that's all good, just feel there should be a way for players to recognize and actively overcome those events rather than for them to jump into a system and the fact that some very rare celestial event is going on makes destruction a fait accompli.

To me the new ADS mechanics described in the OP sound like they'd be better suited for finding the properties of nearby stellar systems rather than worlds within a system, since you can't yet see those worlds, land on them, etc. anyway. Jump into the unknown with some small potential risks involved or take the time with the ADS. Yes, I think I would have much preferred that instead.

Being able to automatically plot my way a fourth of the way across the galaxy out to the Skull and Crossbones Nebula using nothing but scoop-able star types in a combat loaded Vulture, while convenient, seems a little too easy to me. There used to be some thrill going through the brown dwarfs near the galactic plane and not being sure when I'd reach the next scoop-able star.

 

[Marc_Hicks]

I'm of two minds of this. I definitely think risks should be able to be mitigated, but I also don't think exploration should be completely risk free regardless of those mitigations.

In general I agree with what you're saying though.

On this point we definitely agree. Risks do need to be either 100% avoidable with skill, or at least can be reduced to superficial by skill. As I said above, though, I would love to see more activities that can grant geater rewards to players who engage in greater risk-like approaching stars in ways that could increase the chance of damage may pay off with higher refueling rates.

 

[Scytale]

Yes. And a fine tuning of the resources like the raw mats and ores. The more valuable, the more dangerous to acquire. But deposits of mats and ores. Not boulders !

 

[Ziljan]

0% integrity is actually hull at 70% strength I believe...

Regarding danger, I prefer the term challenge. There can be no actual danger in the game, destruction isn't dangerous, just a time sink so frustrating, and as you absolutely correctly (IMO) point out, random destruction would be the worst thing FD could put into the game. I mean, none of us really enjoy the RNG in the game do we?

However, challenge in the game, challenge that can be recognized and can be mitigated by a players actions would be great. Common exploration questions are "should I take heat sinks or an AFMU?", and many explorers just go "meh, I never do, you never need 'em". But we should! And their use should enable explorers to potentially stay out longer, take challenging risks and overcome unexpected challenging events.

Regarding integrity, since it can only be repaired at a station, while it absolutely should make a difference, really all that would do is mean explorers would have to return to civilization more often and I'm not sure I see the added game-play there. IMHO, risks and challenge need to have an active counter to them, not simply a passive one, so there would need to be a way of shoring up your ship's integrity if it's allowed to cause catastrophic consequences, at least somewhat while out in the black.

TL : DR - Challenge in exploration (everywhere in the game) should have an active counter to it. A player should be able to mitigate and overcome the challenge by active game-play. Having random challenge that simply swipes players for no reason and gives them no recourse to be able to overcome it, while that might be something we have to accept in real life, would be tedious in a game.

Not sure if you read my whole post, the effects of module damage being related to integrity wouldn't be random. As I described it should be directly related to the type of radiation that you expose your ship to.

Having modules only be repaired to Max of 75% at zero % integrity means you can still have modules 5% above the malfunction threshold. Hence if you make few errors, then your modules will function just fine. So you don't need to repair your integrity to have a working ship that can go on forever. However, the margin of error when working with a ship with zero integrity gets lowered, which makes staying out in the black for extended times an actual accomplishment.

Likewise with increasing heat accumulation for low integrity ships, which would reduce the margin of error for heat management. This needs to be added in because engineers have removed heat mechanics from the game.

To me the new ADS mechanics described in the OP sound like they'd be better suited for finding the properties of nearby stellar systems rather than worlds within a system. Jump into the unknown or take the time with the ADS. Yes, I think I would have much preferred that instead.

Why not both? Early in the thread I asked if we'll have the option to use the scanner with a focus set to infinity, to scan stars in the sky and ID them for easier "hey what's that over there!?" style gameplay.

 

[Scytale]

Being able to pick a star in the skybox and then go there is surely one of the major lacks of this space game.

 

[Gibbonici]

Actually, we already know that — as described — it won't be. In part because a histogram simply cannot tell many of the things that goes into that determination, and in part because the description explicitly mentions things that would go into that thought process and which now require a further scan to reveal.

Obviously that thought process will be different under the new system, but it's very possible that there'll be sweet spot on the histogram somewhere between the low signal of dead, rocky worlds and the high signal of hot gas giants that signifies (for example) planets with greenhouse atmospheres capable of retaining ambient system heat - such as Earthlikes.

As the description suggests, it'll take some interpretation to fully understand what the histogram is telling you, but if you're looking for high value worlds there should be sections of the histogram that suggest their presence. That's if it's implemented well. If it's implemented very well, then experience will count for a lot when it comes to reading the result of the initial honk. Instead of looking at the system map for planets that look promising (and that can take a bit of experience to judge already), you'll be looking at sections of the histogram that denotes the presence of promising worlds.

The good thing is that you won't have to spend time flying there to find out if the planet was worth checking out in more detail or not, you'll be able to do it from inside the scoop radius of the mainstar while you refuel. That process should be quicker, no matter what, especially if you've got several likely candidates in widely separated orbital positions.

What would be truly great is if the honk-scanned map replaces the current system map (which isn't a map at all and is totally useless for navigation) showing all discovered bodies and orbits.

But as I said, we'll only really know once we get our hands on it. It's natural to be wary of change and I do share a little scepticism given some of FD's previous decisions, but I'm not going to let any of that turn me off the concept until I've had chance to figure it out first hand in-game. On the face of it, it looks a lot closer to the original exploration concept from the old DDF than the overly simplistic system we've got used to, and that seems like a good thing to me. YMMV, natch.